why wouldn't mitt romney fluent in economics explain his economic policy? because any sensible answer would cause a firestorm in his party. it's obvious with a deficit of more than 7% of gross go mess tick product, any solution to our budgetary problems has to involve spending cuts and tax increases. ronald reagan agreed to tax increases when it hit 4%. george w. bush did. but today's republican parties is organized around the proposition that no matter the circumstances, there must never be a tax increase of any kind. the simpson-bowles proposal calls for 1% for every $3 of spending cut bus every republican presidential candidate during the primaries including romney pledge thad he or she would not accept $10 of spending cuts if that meant $10 of tax increases. so romney could present a serious plan and then he would face a revolt within his own party. so his solution has been to be it lerly vague about how to deal with the actually deaf sit. when pressed for details he said, the devil's in the details. he's right. were he to get specific he would be commi